Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Any Violent or Nonsensical Passages in Tipitaka??
Transmetaphysical
Veteran
I'm going to be debating a Christian on the resolution "By scripture, Christianity is more violent than Buddhism."
I try to read as many suttas as I can, but I haven't read them all. There are no questionable passages hiding or lurking in the Pali Canon are there? I am 100% sure there's no violence in the Pali scriptures, but then again, those "10 Precepts" seemed nonsensical to me, such as no music or dancing. (Though, since these are directed at monastics, I suppose it makes sense in order to have a proper and serious sangha to preserve and uphold the Dharma.)
Anyways, the person I am debating claimed that "true and original Buddhists" are violent and Buddhism is more violent than Christianity.
(Btw, there's no animosity. We're online debate buddies.)
.
I try to read as many suttas as I can, but I haven't read them all. There are no questionable passages hiding or lurking in the Pali Canon are there? I am 100% sure there's no violence in the Pali scriptures, but then again, those "10 Precepts" seemed nonsensical to me, such as no music or dancing. (Though, since these are directed at monastics, I suppose it makes sense in order to have a proper and serious sangha to preserve and uphold the Dharma.)
Anyways, the person I am debating claimed that "true and original Buddhists" are violent and Buddhism is more violent than Christianity.
(Btw, there's no animosity. We're online debate buddies.)
.
0
Comments
Then after those 2500 years do you seriously think there will be any discrepencies in the said text mass?
I seriously doubt it.
Good luck in your debate.:)
/Victor
"And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
I would hate to pee in His pool.
/Victor
"Get out recluse," said Alavaka to the Blessed One a fourth time. — "No, O friend, I will not get out. Do what you will."
"I will ask you a question, recluse. If you do not answer me, I will confound your mind (thoughts), or cleave your heart, or take you by your feet and fling you over to the further shore of the ocean (para gangaya).
"Well, friend, I do not see anyone in the world of Devas, Maras, Brahmas, or among the generation of recluses, brahmanas, deities, and humans, who could either confound my mind or cleave my heart, or take me by the feet and fling me over to the further shore of the ocean; nevertheless, friend, ask what you will."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn10/sn10.012.piya.html
Edit: When I first read it, I thought Buddha made the threat, but he merely said that he is impervious to any mental or physical attacks.
.
Alavaka was an evil spirit. Does your friend believe in those?
/Victor
Read my edit note.
Obviously, it doesn't matter if Buddha's adversaries preached violence in the Tipitaka.
Haha, that Bible verse is quite brutal. Maybe I'll use that one against my opponent, lol.
.
Eh, here's a similar one.
"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it." - Isaiah 13:9
.
Has there been any wars fought on behalf of Buddhism?
Buddhism is an invitation for those with eyes to see. Traditionally the monks do not give dhamma talks unless invited to do so. There is no proselytisation and no dogmas.
There may not be any wars fought in the name of Buddhism, that I know of, but there have been violent acts, for sure... people are people, after all. But as far as passages in the Pali Canon? Not that I know of.. of course, the entire thing hasn't been translated, and I haven't read all that has. But if there were, it would also contradict thousands of otherwise consistent suttas, so...
As for "nonsensical"... well you'll have to approach that from the view of the person you're debating with. Kamma and rebirth will inevitably be brought up. There are some passages in the DN that I would consider nonsensical, but there is scholarly support that these were later additions to appeal to the masses - but if he isn't aware of these, then there's no point in me bringing it up.
Dunno. Those are his words, not mine. I put it in quotes just now, to make that clear.
Yeah, the debate excludes what people do in the name of the religion. The debate is based on scripture only.
Actually, this was just my personal inquiry. Only violence will be discussed, not "nonsensical" doctrines.
.
You must both have chapter, verse and reference.
Just like we want it here.
Hmm... How about (H)Ezekiel 25:17?
/Victor
Here is 25:16-26:2 for context.
The old testament, on the other hand, is a veritable cornucopia of blood and vengeance. Your debating buddy would have to possess awesome rhetorical skills to win that debate.
Cheers, Thomas
I've never read about that. Can you link me to that story? Sounds interesting.
Yeah, I'm surprised he holds this position with such conviction. He's actually the one who challenged me and with confidence.
.
I think looking at these facts (which are happy to be disproved) its pretty clear to see that it is absurd to expect there to not be inconsistencies between passages.
It would in fact be a miracle of huge proportions.
So to answer your question, I would say yes, every passage:)
And this is as we should expect, are we not instructed in the spirit of "question everything?"
namaste
Fascinating! I made the opposite conjecture early in the thread.
Care to debate?
If so show me an inconsistancy that can not be explained in the suttas.
/Victor
The question at hand isn't really about the truth, accuracy, or consistency of the suttas, but whether the doctrines contain any violence.
Though, regarding the suttas, we know that they date back to around 2,200 years ago, there was a one man who taught these teachings (based on his speach patterns), and the texts say that this mans name was Siddhartha.
So we can be sure that there was a man who taught what's in the suttas and his name was likely Siddhartha. The question about the actual source of the Pali Canon isn't as important as the source of the Bible that claims divine origin spoken by God. We don't make such an extraordinary claim and don't require as much extraordinary evidence.
.
Sure! Though I am not sure what there is to debate:)
I can do better than that! I shall give you not one but two... CORRECT two inconsistencies from within the ten thousand suttas of the pali Cannon:p
One is quite lighthearted and the other still lights my heart and hurts my head.
Inconsistency One)
I don't have the reference with me, but I am pretty sure that in one sutta the Budda is said to eat "milk rice" whereas in another he is said to eat "sweet rice milk". A contradiction, methinks? Moi, uno, vous, non:p
Inconsistency Two)
I don't have the reference with me, but I think there is something inconsistent between these two statements.
All things are impermanent, interconnected and empty.
There is a thing that is not impermanent, interconnected or empty which connects countless human lives across time eternal.
I used to be very cocksure that I was right in my answer as to why there is this second inconsistency, now I am not so sure:)
Its all a path;)
namaste
I am on my toes! Such supension!.
I am aghast and baffled. You got me good. I yeild.
Might you be referring to AN 3.134 in the first sentance? =
Whether Perfect Ones (Buddhas) appear in the world, or A. III. 134
whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still
remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law:
that all formations are impermanent (anicca), that all formations
are subject to suffering (dukkha); that everything is
without a Self (an-atta ).
And maybe Udana in your second sentance? =
Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the Ud. VIII. 1
fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any
other world, neither sun nor moon.
This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing
still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor
development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.
There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If Ud. VIII. 3
there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated,
this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the
originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.
But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated,
Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the
born, the originated, the created, the formed.
In that case there is no real contraversy. It is all formations that are subject to dukkha, anicca and anatta not the unformed...
Yes, agreed. Nice to share yours for a brief moment.:)
Thanks
Victor
Yippie! My illusionary ego loves illusionary victories:p
I was being general not specific, in the second inconsistency, at least.
It does make sense to call contingent things/systems/structures as formations. However, because the term is used specifically within certain dharmic notions, such as mental formations or formations in the 12 links of suffering, I would prefer a translation such as "systems" or "things".
As to your second passage, interesting!:)
This isn't inconsistent with the the above.ie, dharma
This isn't inconsistent with the the above.ie, dharma. I havent read this before, at least not recently. What Suttas is it from. like it.
This is a very interesting passage! I don't recall reading it before.
Do you think it is referring to the possibility space of Dependent origination? The countless things that never were or will be make possible the things that have happened or will happen. (IE, in the four alternatives of DO, three are always "unborn".)
BTW, You didn't paste the first sentence of the above passage which seems to be:
the buddha says that DO is Dharma. he also says that DO is hard to see. And in the sentence above this is repeated, I think this supports my interpretation that the passage is about DO.
So assuming that, I would say that again, there is no inconsistency in the passage you suggested. Can I have another please!:)
I am guessing having read this that you dont think the unformed is that which was not and will not be. What is it to you?
Right on!
namaste
ie the 8 garudammas etc.
Hold on. I thought You were supposed to give me the inconsistencies?
When did the tables turn?
:eek:
Well I have always thought that Udana VIII. 1 and 3 was referring to Nibbana...
Curious
Victorious
You suggested a passage to represent what I said and then asked what was inconsistent. I said that the passages you pasted were not representing what I was referring to.
That udana passage is great. I haven't really read them before, thank you. I dont know what to make of this. Its starts talking about Nibbana but then isnt the end a postulation of all that is left when nibanna is seen as not ?
It seems to me it could be referring to the totality of possibilities linked by dependent origination that we experience as "time" and change?
namaste
Oki. you lost me for a moment.:)
How about if you read this version
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress.
and http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time the Blessed One was instructing urging, rousing, and encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with Unbinding. The monks — receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear — listened to the Dhamma.
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.
I do not really understand your last comment so I do not know if the above helps...
What do you mean by
"isnt the end a postulation of all that is left when nibanna is seen as not ?"
/Victor
Thanks for those. My unsuirty remains:)
What I mean here is maybe he is saying "Nibanna is nonexistance but there is something which exists that is unborn etc etc and this is the limitless unbound and interconected possibility space...."
I dunno. just throwing ideas into the soup:)
namaste